166 F.

3d 428

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,

v.
William T. COLEMAN, Defendant-Appellant,
Beverly Holland and Roxanne M. Stowe, Defendants.
Docket No. 98-1270.

United States Court of Appeals,

Second Circuit.
Argued Dec. 9, 1998.
Decided Jan. 21, 1999.

David V. Kirby, Assistant United States Attorney, District of Vermont,

for Charles R. Tetzlaff, United States Attorney for the District of
Vermont, Burlington, VT, for Appellee.
Bradley S. Stetler, Stetler, Allen & Kampmann, Burlington, VT, for
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: KEARSE, WALKER, and STRAUB, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Defendant-appellant William T. Coleman appeals from a judgment of the

United States District Court for the District of Vermont (William K. Sessions,
III, Judge ), convicting him, following the entry of a guilty plea, of possession
with intent to distribute cocaine base ("crack" or "crack cocaine") in violation of
21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), and sentencing him principally to a 240-month term of
incarceration. On appeal, Coleman challenges his sentence, contending that: (1)
21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(A) and the United States Sentencing Guidelines violate
the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause
because their harsher penalties for offenses involving crack cocaine fall
disproportionately on minority defendants; and (2) the District Court erred by
including the weight of residual water contained in the crack cocaine attributed
to Coleman in determining the amount of narcotic for sentencing. We reject
both contentions and affirm.

BACKGROUND
2

In March of 1996, Coleman was arrested in the District of Vermont and

charged with conspiring to distribute, as well as possessing with intent to
distribute, crack cocaine. A superseding indictment filed on April 4, 1996
refined the charges to allege one count of conspiring to distribute crack cocaine,
two counts of possessing with intent to distribute crack cocaine, and one count
of traveling in interstate commerce with the intent to promote unlawful activity.
On August 12, 1996, Coleman, pursuant to a plea agreement, pleaded guilty to
one of the possession counts in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), and the other
counts were dropped.

At sentencing, Coleman raised two relevant objections. First, he argued that

because the applicable sentencing provisions punish a crime involving a given
amount of crack cocaine as severely as the same crime involving one hundred
times an equivalent amount of powder cocaine, and because almost all crack
offenses involve minority defendants while a majority of powder cocaine
offenses involve white defendants, the sentencing provisions punish minorities
more severely than whites and, therefore, violate equal protection principles.
Second, Coleman argued that the District Court should exclude the weight of
residual water contained in the crack cocaine attributed to him when calculating
the amount of the narcotic for sentencing because the water was not consumed
with the drug and, therefore, was not part of the narcotic mixture.

The District Court rejected both objections. It then determined that Coleman's
offense involved 52.9 grams of crack cocaine, a figure that included arguably
up to 3.703 grams of water. Based on this drug quantity, the District Court
determined Coleman's base offense level to be thirty-two. See U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual 2D1.1. The Court then decreased Coleman's offense level
by three for his acceptance of responsibility, see id. 3E1.1, and the resulting
base offense level, combined with Coleman's criminal history category of V,
yielded a sentencing range of 140 to 175 months' imprisonment. However,
because Coleman's offense involved over fifty grams of crack cocaine and
because Coleman committed the offense after a final conviction for another
felony drug offense, 21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(A) requires that Coleman be
sentenced to a minimum term of 240 months' imprisonment. See also U.S.
Sentencing Guidelines Manual 5G1.1(c) (providing that where statutory
minimum sentence is greater than Guidelines maximum sentence, the statutory
minimum becomes the Guidelines range). Accordingly, the District Court
sentenced Coleman principally to a twenty-year term of incarceration.

Coleman filed a timely notice of appeal on May 13, 1998.

DISCUSSION
6

Coleman raises the same two arguments on appeal that he presented to the
District Court during sentencing. Neither argument is availing.

I. Equal Protection
7

Coleman's first claim is that the sentencing provisions for crack cocaine violate
equal protection principles because their harsher penalties fall
disproportionately on racial minorities. Acknowledging that we have rejected
the application of strict scrutiny to the challenged sentencing provisions, see
United States v. Teague, 93 F.3d 81, 84-85 (2d Cir.1996), cert. denied, 519
U.S. 1067, 117 S.Ct. 708, 136 L.Ed.2d 629 (1997); United States v. Moore, 54
F.3d 92, 96-99 (2d Cir.1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1081, 116 S.Ct. 793, 133
L.Ed.2d 742 (1996), and that we, as well as our sister Circuits, have rejected
challenges to the provisions under the rational basis test, see, e.g., United States
v. Damblu, 134 F.3d 490, 493 (2d Cir.1998) (relying on Teague, 93 F.3d at 8485); United States v. Then, 56 F.3d 464, 466 (2d Cir.1995); United States v.
Hanna, 153 F.3d 1286, 1288-89 (11th Cir.1998); United States v. Washington,
127 F.3d 510, 516-18 (6th Cir.1997), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 118 S.Ct. 2348,
141 L.Ed.2d 2718 (1998); United States v. Holton, 116 F.3d 1536, 1548
(D.C.Cir.1997), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 118 S.Ct. 736, 139 L.Ed.2d 673
(1998); United States v. Blanding, 53 F.3d 773, 776 (7th Cir.1995); United
States v. Singleterry, 29 F.3d 733, 739-41 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S.
1048, 115 S.Ct. 647, 130 L.Ed.2d 552 (1994), Coleman presents a new
argument. He contends that because the challenged provisions' impact on
minorities presents "recurring constitutional difficulties" and because of recent
policy positions announced by the United States Sentencing Commission and
the United States Attorney General favoring the elimination or reduction of the
sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine,1 the sentencing
provisions should be examined under the intermediate level of scrutiny applied
in Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 102 S.Ct. 2382, 72 L.Ed.2d 786 (1982). Under
this intermediate scrutiny, Coleman argues, the sentencing provisions for crack
cocaine do not pass constitutional muster because they are not substantially
related to an important governmental objective.

We find Coleman's argument unpersuasive. In order to trigger intermediate

scrutiny, a challenged law must employ some sort of "quasi-suspect
classification," Able v. United States, 155 F.3d 628, 632 (2d Cir.1998), or
implicate an important, though not constitutional, right, see Eisenbud v. Suffolk
County, 841 F.2d 42, 45 (2d Cir.1988); cf. Plyler, 457 U.S. at 216-24, 102 S.Ct.
2382 (holding that Texas must demonstrate that law barring children of

undocumented aliens from schools furthers "some substantial goal of the State"
even though undocumented aliens are not a suspect class because education,
though not a fundamental right, is nevertheless an important state function).
The Supreme Court has rejected the notion that a classification is suspect when
"entry into th[e] class ... is the product of voluntary action." Plyler, 457 U.S. at
219 n. 19, 102 S.Ct. 2382.
9

In this case, the challenged sentencing classifications distinguish between

dealing in crack cocaine and dealing in powder cocaine. These are hardly quasisuspect classifications. Moreover, the present policy positions of the
Sentencing Commission and the Attorney General, although politically
significant, do not, in and of themselves, render the sentencing classifications
quasi-suspect. A person duly convicted of a crime may be subjected to
whatever penalty the statute authorizes, "so long as the penalty is not based on
an arbitrary distinction that would violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth
Amendment." Chapman v. United States, 500 U.S. 453, 465, 111 S.Ct. 1919,
114 L.Ed.2d 524 (1991). Penal distinctions based on differences in voluntary
conduct thus cannot be arbitrary, but this caveat subjects them only to rationalbasis scrutiny, not to intermediate level scrutiny. We therefore decline to extend
Plyler by applying intermediate scrutiny to the challenged sentencing
provisions. Accordingly, we reject Coleman's equal protection claim.

II. Calculation of the Amount of Crack Cocaine

10
11

Coleman's second claim is that the District Court improperly included the
weight of residual water contained in the crack cocaine attributed to him in
determining the amount of the narcotic for sentencing. Coleman contends that
in the absence of government evidence indicating that water retained in crack
cocaine is actually consumed during the smoking process, the weight of the
water should not have been considered part of the narcotic mixture.

12

Title 21, section 841(b)(1)(A) of the United States Code imposes, inter alia,
mandatory minimum sentences for offenses involving fifty grams or more of "a
mixture or substance" containing crack cocaine. Whether residual water should
be considered part of a crack cocaine "mixture or substance" under the statute is
an issue of law that we review de novo.

13

We have previously held that liqueur in which cocaine is dissolved and

transported is not to be included in determining the amount of cocaine for
purposes of sentencing. See United States v. Acosta, 963 F.2d 551, 554 (2d
Cir.1992); see also United States v. Salgado-Molina, 967 F.2d 27, 29 (2d
Cir.1992) (per curiam) (relying on Acosta ). We reasoned that:

14
Because
the creme liqueur must be separated from the cocaine before the cocaine
may be distributed, it is not unreasonable to consider the liquid waste as the
functional equivalent of packaging material, which quite clearly is not to be included
in the weight calculation.
15

....

16

... Function, not form, is critical. Congress [in enacting 841] was concerned
with mixtures that will eventually reach the streets, i.e., consumable mixtures.

17

Acosta, 963 F.2d at 554 (citations omitted).

18

In contrast to the liqueur in Acosta, however, the water in Coleman's crack

cocaine was not liquid waste or packaging material. Rather, the residual water
was part of the consumable mixture: The crack cocaine, water included, was
ready for sale and for use as it was. No further distillation or processing was
necessary to transform it into a consumable, marketable product. Cf. Chapman
v. United States, 500 U.S. 453, 461, 111 S.Ct. 1919, 114 L.Ed.2d 524 (1991)
(noting that Congress "intended the penalties for drug trafficking to be
graduated according to the weight of the drugs in whatever form they were
found--cut or uncut, pure or impure, ready for wholesale or ready for
distribution at the retail level"); Acosta, 963 F.2d at 554 ("Purity is not the
focal point of culpability; rather, Congress was concerned with the amount of
consumable drugs on the market, whether pure or impure.") (emphasis added).
As the Seventh Circuit explained in addressing the same issue:

19

Cocaine base is made by mixing cocaine and baking soda and boiling it in
water, and in so doing, the water becomes mixed with the cocaine base. Users
of cocaine base need not wait until the water evaporates before using the drug;
nor, for that matter, must users separate the cocaine from the baking soda. All
three ingredients are part of a whole, blended together, and therefore comport
with the common understanding of "mixture"....

20

United States v. Tucker, 20 F.3d 242, 244 (7th Cir.1994) (citation omitted).

21

Because the residual water contained in Coleman's crack cocaine was part of a
useable and saleable narcotic mixture, the District Court properly included it in
calculating the amount of crack cocaine for sentencing.

CONCLUSION

22

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Coleman's sentence.

See United States Sentencing Commission, Special Report to Congress:

Cocaine and Federal Sentencing Policy (Apr.1997); Letter from U.S. Attorney
General Janet Reno and Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy
Barry R. McCaffrey to President Clinton (July 3, 1997), printed in Cocaine
Sentencing Policy in the Federal Criminal Justice System, 10 Fed. Sentencing
Rep. 192 (1998); see also Darlene Superville: Clinton-Proposed CocaineSentence Guidelines Hit In Congress, Associated Press Pol. Serv., July 23,
1997